May 2024 - Parks & Recreation - 31

it to exercise on her commute. Wallace conceded that
she did not have to pay a toll or park access fee to travel
through the promenade.
Park Promenade Thoroughfare
On appeal, the City claimed the trial court had " incorrectly
found the MRUS was inapplicable " because
immunity under the MRUS " is not dependent upon
the actions or intent (subjective or objective) of the entrant. "
On the contrary, the City maintained MRUS
immunity " only requires that a landowner make land
available for recreational use without charge. " Accordingly,
" even if Wallace's intent was considered in analyzing
the MRUS, " the City argued Wallace was " both
objectively and subjectively engaged in a recreational
pursuit when she fell. "
Since " the area where Wallace fell " was " land made
available to the public for recreational use without
charge, " the Defendant City, therefore, argued " the
City should have been granted judgment as a matter
of law " by the trial court based upon applicable
MRUS immunity.
As described by the appeals court, the specific issue
on review was, therefore, whether the promenade
should be considered an immune public park under the
MRUS or a non-immune " modern transportation and
commuting system " administered by the Department
of Transportation that " relies on thoroughfares such as
the waterfront promenade. "
Public Park Immunity
In addition to MRUS immunity, the appeals court
also considered the applicability of the following
" the common law doctrine of governmental immunity "
in Maryland to the Defendant City of Baltimore
in this case:
A local government or municipality may be immune
from traditional common law liability if the government
is performing a governmental function, such as maintaining
a public park. However, a local government is
not immune if performing a proprietary or corporate
function, such as maintaining a sidewalk.
As described by the appeals court this governmental
immunity would apply under the following circumstances:
The
law of this State is well established that a municipal
corporation is not liable in a civil action for any
default or neglect in the performance of a purely governPARK
S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | MAY 2 0 2 4 | Parks & Recreation
31
mental function, such as the maintenance and management
of a public park for recreational purposes.
Municipal Sidewalk Liability
In contrast to traditional governmental immunity for
public parks in Maryland, the appeals court further
noted " the keeping of public highways and walkways
under its management and control in a reasonably safe
condition is a corporate function of a municipality and
it is therefore answerable in damages for failing to exercise
such function " :
There is no question that, by the great weight of authority,
the rule of law is that it is a private proprietary
obligation of municipal corporations to keep their streets
and public ways reasonably safe for travel in the ordinary
manner, and to prevent and remove a nuisance affecting
the use and safety of these public ways.
Accordingly, under Maryland common law, Wallace
claimed " public sidewalks are among the classic items of
municipal property that local governments must...exercise
due care to maintain. " Moreover, Wallace claimed
Home Is Where Parks and Rec Is
You work hard to build a thriving, more vibrant
community. Let CivicPlus®
lend a helping hand
with your recreation management.
We appreciate you. Scan to read our
free eBook, Seven Ways Your Parks
and Recreation Efforts Are
Strengthening Your Community.
May 2024 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2024 - Parks & Recreation
